Access to VC records source

[Billy_Bishop]

I think I can agree with PART of that previous statement. Some of it does stretch credibility a bit too far.

VBR,

Al Lowe

I'd sincerely hoped this thread would stay on topic and not mutate into the usual tirade, but I was wrong. So here goes.

If Bishop had 32 claims where the EA was claimed destroyed and there were no supporting German losses, he was certainly not alone. There are many, many, many similar problems for lots of other Allied claims where aircraft were reported destroyed or crashed and there are no corresponding German losses for that time and place. This applies not only to the other major aces, but "everyday" pilots as well. This is the most important aspect of the entire debate. If a pilot claims he saw an aircraft destroyed (and I'm sure many of these claims were supported by his flight-mates in the combat reports) and it was not, then he is not just mistaken. He is a flat-out liar.

Logically:

a) Bishop was a liar AND/OR
B) Lying about claims was SOP for Allied pilots anyway

OR

c) there is some other explanation for the discrepancy.

Note the AND/OR in a) and B). Bishop could still be a liar even if other pilots were not; this is just common sense. My point here is that if you use the records to call Bishop a liar, you must apply the same logic to other's claims and they become liars under the same criteria (the records).

I think the most sensible conclusion is c). I think it unlikely in the extreme that lying about claims was standard operating procedure for Allied pilots, if for no other reason that in the ninety years since the events SOMEBODY would have 'fessed up. Beyond that, I just don't believe they were that kind of people. If I recall correctly, the inflated body counts in Viet Nam were in the news while they were still happening.

[Billy_Bishop]

Sorry Ed.

I didn't mean for things to get off track, but I believe that is the nature of the BB Controversy beast.

I'll tell you what I know, unfortunately, it is mostly 2nd hand info. So take it with a grain of salt, as it is, this is how it was relayed to me.

MOST, but not all of the reports, which would include witnesses affadavits that SHOULD have accompanied Bishop's VC warrant are missing. He is not alone in this. Others have similar missing documents. I don't know who, that part was never covered. Suffice it to say, if Bishop were the ONLY one for whom documents were missing there would most likely have been an investigation.

However, as it is, this appears to have been SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in that whenever possible, they USED to purge records from the documents room(s) in order to make room for newer stuff.

I believe this is no longer the practice, but I don't have info on when the practice ceased.

That is why, with all the After war declarations made by various authors, as well as the statement made in the London Times, that I believe there was witness verification. It's just a real shame that none of it survived.

But, it's an even bigger shame that it has become necessary.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Thanks, Al. It would be nice to get additional details in this area, since it could help to explain the lack of witness reports. One would think that in such an action, behind enemy lines in an uncertain location and with (presumably) only third-party accounts, the witness reports would have been deemed worthy of retaining. That said, there's no accounting for the thinking of the bureaucrats responsible for determining these things...

[Billy_Bishop]

You have to remember how the British are about secrets though. Chances are if the raid was confirmed by spies behind the lines, those reports would have been either heavily censored, or simply they would have been shown to someone responsible enough to grant confirmation and then destroyed to preserve the identies of the agents.

At least, that's one theory put forward by those a bit closer to the workings of the old British military establishment than I am.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Getting back to the original question regarding Bishop`s "missing" file:

It is possible that Bishop`s file has gone missing, been stolen, shredded or otherwise destroyed.

It is also possible that due to Bishop`s high rank, the file is kept under wraps away from the average, everyday researcher.

When Ron Haycock was researching Sir Sam Hughes, the Canadian Minister of Militia and Defence, he discovered that there were hidden files. To quote page 98 of Haycock`s book:

Evidently the War Office did keep at least one secret dossier on Sam Hughes. Sometime in 1903 the content of the "Colonel Sam Hughes" dossier was important enough "to be taken home by F[ield] M[arshal] Lord Robert`s office." (What was in it is now lost).

In Ron`s case, the process he had to go through in order to see the file was extreme. He had to file a special request to see the file. Once granted, he was whisked into the deep dark dungeons to a small room, where the file was brought in by someone wearing white gloves. This individual would then open the file folder (sealed in red tape, if I recall correctly), show you the contents and then re-seal the folder.

In Ron`s case, when the folder was discovered to be empty, the white-gloved individual was shocked, to say the least. Ron picked up the folder, and turning in over saw the above quoted comment on the back of the folder written in pencil.

Ron speculated that the contents may have been used as fire-starter for the Field Marshal`s fireplace that weekend.

Just an amusing story to show anything is possible.

VBR

Steven Dieter
Officer Cadet
Former Historian, Billy Bishop Heritage Museum